1) The media holds a great impact on society. Essentially media is a tool by which the opinions and views of people is molded [1]. This means that with censorship, as applied by a the state, can cause people to think in the point of view that the government wants them to think in.The spread of one idea is being stopped in order to allow for the spread of an ideal that the government supports. An excellent example of this can be seen in the recent events in Libya [2] as an alleged rape victim's story was smeared. This was another frugal attempt by the government to prevent outsiders from knowing the true state of affairs within Libya. Along with the fact that the government attempted to smear the woman's story is the idea that they could be doing this to dozens more. And if you prefer to look at a more democratic and modernized political system as a testament to the censorship. Throughout much of the reporting age of the Iraq war the real reason behind the American attacks of the Middle Eastern country were mustered and lies were debated and thrown over [3]. The government kept a firm hand on what was being said when it came to the topic of the war. And when several years later, Wikileaks revealed the true story behind the war the United States was very quick to cover everything up and attempted to silence Wikileaks.

2) A lack of media censorship is important in keeping transparency between the State and the People. If political leaders are aware that what they do might be documented , there would be a less corrupt government. Look at the example of how 24-hour news coverage affected the American government so much that they pulled themselves out of Somalia in the early 1990s. If media were to be used to convey the darker side of politics, politicians might be forced to make decisions that are more appealing to the American public. This matter can also be implemented in countries in which the government enacts even worse political changes.

3) Keeping information from the public can result in people becoming unaware of what occurs around them. If the government were to force all news channels to convey a certain message people might become aware of the many things aware around them. For example, if images with sexual-content were to be banned from the media it might be difficult for educators to educate children about what sex is and how to prevent STIs. Governments should not have control over what the people think or what they can do. It should be the other way around.

4) Another con of censorship is that it stifles progress in the creative arts and the introduction of new ideas. If censorships were to be enacted it cannot be guaranteed that new ideas will be available to the public. Not to mention the fact that with censorship entertainment will expired a new dullness due to lack of varied contents.

5) Another con of censorship, is even though it has a positive side, it is mostly used by governments in an improper manner. A dramatic example of media censorship can be seen in China and Libya. In China, media censorship is enacted in order to prevent people from being introduced to ideas that might interfere with political authority in China [4]. In Libya, media censorship is used to hide the countries various killings and the flaws in its justice system [5]. And the case is not only present in these countries it is present in several more [6]. Many of these countries enact all their censorship procedures by making all media state-owned. This in turn emphasizes that a large portion of media censorship that occurs in the world is politically based making other aspects of media censorship almost non-existent to a certain degree.

1) Media molds the opinions and views of society. When censorship is applied to a state the government can stop the spread of one idea to destroy the undermining of ideas it does support.

My opponent speaks true when he states that the media plays an important role on societies views and opinions. It is also true that censorship can be used for this form of government control of public opinion. I would like to point out that just because censorship has the possibility to be used for such motives does not mean for certain that it will. Propaganda and government lies are not the result of censorship, they are solely reliant on the state itself. If the government decides to be deceptive and try to control the public the is the issue of the government and not censorship. The covering up of the war in the Middle East was not due to any pre-existing law on media censorship, it was the American government giving the press dishonest details of it's motives. Therefore that example was not reliant of the media itself or censoring, it was set into place by the state.

I would also like to clarify that there is a difference between censorship and control of the media. Censorship is simply the filtering of media for any intent, not limited to the negative ones. When the government has complete control of the media, every thing produced and denied to be produced is at the discretion of the government. In other words, the government can control what is in the media and what is not in the media but the act of omitting certain things is censorship.

2) Lack of media censorship is important in keeping transparency between the State and the People. If political leaders are aware that what they do might be documented, there would be a less corrupt government.

Again, the problem isn't censorship, the problem is government. A state can keep as much secret as it wants. Public statements and announcements are not created by the media, the media simply acts as the medium for it.

A lack of censorship does not necessarily mean less corruption. Censorship may possibly be used to cover up corruption but if this is the case it goes back to the government (which in this case is most likely a totalitarian state) being the issue. If the state was democratic it wouldn't be hiding scandals of individual public officials anyways.

3) Keeping information from the public can result in people becoming unaware of what occurs around them.

Censorship does have to mean completely omitting information, it can just be stemming ideas to only mediums which are appropriate. Censorship does not have to exist in the form which my opponent is using to prove his point. In my opponents example sexual images are banned which can be slightly detrimental to sexual education. This example is unrealistic though because censorship is at the discretion of the government and it won't go around randomly censoring things just because there is no international law against it especially if it does the opposite of helping them. Just because it can happen does not mean it will. Should we tear off everyones arms because it is possible that the people will go around strangling babies and seals.

4) If censorships were to be enacted it cannot be guaranteed that new ideas will be available to the public.

My opponents arguments are redundant to refute. Most of his arguments are built off the fallacy that because something can, it will. Furthermore this claim has little support--because some ideas are non-present does not mean that a culture will become stale and fade. Before many cultures came into contact with each other they existed and grew on their own. There would be no difference between an idea never being introduced and it being completely censored and taken out of the culture. Creative arts would still exist and flourish regardless of censorship.

5) Censorship is mostly used to preserve political idealogies

This again goes back to my comment on my opponents previous arguments. I will expand on this whole point my own arguments.

Constructive arguments

Censorship to this day exists in all societies. My opponent states the censorship can block us from positive exposures but censorship can also stem negative exposures. Sexually explicit and profane content is generally prohibited from being aired on television during a certain time of day. Whats good and whats bad is subjective but there are many ideas that undoubtedly have no positive affect on society. Racism, radical political and religious violence should have no place being aired in our media for impressionable children. Some discretion is need in deciding what content is widely available. Censorship merely let us put ideas where they are appropriate.

Seeing as this is a 5-round debate with a hefty 8000 character limit I will build my argument further in the following rounds. It is a very unconvenient time for me to make this post at this time so I shall cut it off here.

Unfortunately my opponent has been unable to post her response in time. I have not heard back from her so I cannot be certain if she is going through a troubling time in her personal or family life. I was hoping to expand and add some clarity on my points but I would think it would be unfair so I will wait and see my opponent posts her round 4. Hopefully we can still have an enjoyable debate with the remaining two rounds. All I will do this round is extend my previous arguments and wish my opponent luck on any serious personal issues she may be facing.

meh I was looking forward to actually get my full argument out but it seems kind of pointless posting it the last round of a completely forfeited debate. I thank my opponent for bringing up the topic but I still cannot call this a "good debate" -.- Maybe somebody else would like to debate me on this topic?

I'm just commenting because the favorite feature on my account seems to be glitched. I'll consider taking this debate. It would be more preferrable to have more time for each round, with school starting up again for me, but I will still consider taking the debate as is.